• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.22-33
• /
• 2003

Purpose : The purpose of this study was to evaluate the present status of patients' satisfaction and the reasons for any satisfaction or dissatisfaction in cancer pain management Methods : A cross-sectional survey was used to obtain the feedback about pain management. The results of the survey were collected from 59 in- or out-patient who had cancer treatment at two of the teaching hospitals in Seoul from July, 2002 to November, 2002. The data was obtained by a structured questionnaire based on the American Cancer Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire(APS-POQ) and other previous research. The clinical information for all patients were compiled by reviewing their medical records. Resuts : 1) The subjects' mean score of the worst pain was 6.77, the average pain score was 3.80, and the pain score after management was 2.93 for the past 24 hours. The mean score of total pain interference was $25.03{\pm}12.82$. Many of the subjects had false beliefs about pain such as 'the experience of pain is a sign that the illness has gotten worse', 'pain medicine should be 'saved' in case the pain gets worse' and 'people get addicted to pain medicine easily'. 2) 66.1% of the subjects were properly medicated with analgesics. 33.9% of the subjects reported use of various methods in controlling pain other than the prescribed medication. Only 33.9% of the subjects had a chance to be educated about pain management by doctors or nurses. 3) The mean score of patients' satisfaction with pain management was $4.19{\pm}1.14$. 72.9% of the subjects answered 'satisfied' with pain management. The reasons for dissatisfaction were 'the pain was not relieved even after the pain management', 'I was not quickly and promptly treated when I complained of pain', 'doctors and nurses didn't pay much attention to my complaints of pain.', and 'there was no appropriate information given on the methods of administration, effect duration and side effects of pain medicine.' The reasons for satisfaction were: 'the pain was relieved after the pain management.', 'doctors and nurses quickly and promptly controlled my pain.', 'doctors and nurses paid enough attention to my complaints of pain.' and 'trust in my physician'. 4) In pain severity or pain interference, no significant difference was found between the satisfied group and dissatisfied group. On the belief 'good patients avoid talking about pain', a significant difference was found between the satisfied group and dissatisfied group. Conclusions : The patients' satisfaction with cancer pain management has increased over the years but still about 30% of patients reported to be 'not satisfied' for various reasons. The results of this study suggest that patients' education should be done to improve satisfaction in the pain management program.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• v.4 no.1
• /
• pp.14-25
• /
• 2001

Purpose : To determine whether there exist gender differences in pain in Korean cancer patients and whether the depression and performance that are often expressed differently between men and women with cancer interact with pain. Method : The results of survey were collected from 140 in- and out-patients (78 male and 62 female) who had cancer treatment at one of the university hospital in Seoul for four months from February of 1999. The severity and interference of pain were examined with the self-reported survey based on Korean version of Brief Pain Inventory (BPI-K). Demographic and clinical information for all patient were compiled by reviewing their medical records, and the level of depression was examined with the Korean version of Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-K). Usual statistical methods, e.g., frequences, means and SDs were used to characterize the sample. The chi-square tests for categorical data and t-test for numerical data were used for group comparison. And the correlation between variables were performed using Pearson correlation coefficient. Resuts : 1) The mean scores of the worst pain for last 24-hours measured with the pain severity of BPI-K were 5.77 in male and 6.45 in female. The pain interference of BPI-K in men was in the order of mood (5.49), enjoy (5.36), and work (5.00), and in women were work (7.48), enjoy (7.16), and mood (6.53). 2) In pain severity, significant difference was found between men and women in the average pain for last 24-hours (t=-2.130, P=.035). In pain interference, significant difference was found between men and women in activity (t=-2.450, P=.015), mood (t=-2,321, P=.022), walk (t=-2.762, P=.007), work (t=-4.946, P=.000), relate (t=-2.595, P=.010), sleep (t=-2.071, P=.040), enjoy (t=-3.198, P=.001). 3) It was found that the items of pain and depression are significantly correlated in men but not in women. Men also exhibited higher correlation in the items of pain and performance status than women. Conclusions : Women report significantly greater average pain for last 24-hours and for all items of pain interference than men. Pain and depression are significantly correlated in men. The results of this study suggest that gender differences in pain should be considered for planning effective pain management program.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.27-36
• /
• 1997

Purpose : This study was tried to evaluate the Potential benefits of concurrent chemoradiation therapy (low dose daily cisplatin combined with split course radiation therapy) compared with conventional radiation therapy alone in stage III non-small cell lung cancer. The end points of analyses were response rate. overall survival, survival without locoregional failure, survival without distant metastasis, prognostic factors affecting survival and treatment related toxicities. Materials and Methods : Between April 1992 and March 1994, 32 patients who had stage III non-small cell lung cancer were treated with concurrent chemoradiation therapy. Radiation therapy for 2 weeks (300 cGy given 10 times up to 3000 cGy) followed by a 3 weeks rest period and then radiation therapy for 2 more weeks (250 cGy given 10 times up to 2500 cGy) was combined with $6mg/m^2$ of cisplatin. Follow-up period ranged from 13 months to 48 months with median of 24 months. Historical control group consisted of 32 patients who had stage III non-small cell lung cancer were received conventionally fractionated (daily 170-200 cGy) radiation therapy alone. Total radiation dose ranged from 5580 cGy to 7000 cGy with median of 5940 cGy. Follow-up Period ranged from 36 months to 105 months with median of 62 months. Result : Complete reponse rate was higher in chemoradiation therapy (CRT) group than radiation therapy (RT) group (18.8% vs. 6.3%, CRT group showed lower in-field failure rate compared with RT group(25% vs. 47%. The overall survival rate had no significant differences in between CRT group and RT group (17.5% vs. 9.4% at 2 years). The survival without locoregional failure (16.5% vs. 5.3% at 2 years) and survival without distant metastasis (17% vs. 4.6% at 2 years) also had no significant differences. In subgroup analyses for Patients with good performance status (Karnofsky performance scale 80), CRT group showed significantly higher overall survival rate compared with RT group (62.5% vs. 15.6% at 2 years). The prognostic factors affecting survival rate were performance status and pathologic subtype (squamous cell cancer vs. nonsquamous cell cancer) in CRT group. In RT alone group, performance status and stage (IIIa vs IIIb) were identified as a Prognostic factors. RTOG/EORTC grade 2-3 nausea and vomiting(22% vs 6% and bone marrow toxicities (25% vs. 15.6% were significantly higher in CRT group compared with RT alone group. The incidence of RTOG/EORTC grade 3-4 pulmonary toxicity had no significant differences in between CRT group and RT group (16% vs. 6%. The incidence of WHO grade 3-4 pulmonary fibrosis also had no significant differences in both group (38% vs. 25%. In analyses for relationship of field size and Pulmonary toxicity, the Patients who treated with field size beyond 200cm2 had significantly higher rates of pulmonary toxicities. Conclusion : The CRT group showed significantly higher local control rate than RT group. There were no significant differences of survival rate in between two groups. The subgroup of patients who had good performance status showed higher overall survival rate in CRT group than RT group. In spite of higher incidence of acute toxicities with concurrent chemoradiation therapy, the survival gain in subgroup of patients with good performance status were encouraging. CRT group showed higher rate of early death within 1 year, higher 2 year survival rate compared with RT group Therefore, to evaluate the accurate effect on survival of concurrent chemoradiation therapy, systematic follow-up for long term survivors are needed.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.16 no.4
• /
• pp.409-423
• /
• 1998

Purpose : This retrospective study was tried to evaluate the clinical characteristics of patients, patterns of failure, survival rates, prognostic factors affecting survival, and treatment related toxicities when non-small cell lung cancer patients was treated by definitive radiotherapy alone or combined with chemotherapy. Materials and Methods : We evaluated the treatment results of 70 patients who were treated by definitive radiation therapy for non-small cell lung cancer at the Department of Radiation Oncology, Ewha Womans University Hospital, between March 1982 and April 1996. The number of patients of each stage was 2 in stage I, 6 in stage II, 30 in stage III-A, 29 in stage III-B, 3 in stage IV. Radiation therapy was administered by 6 MV linear accelerator and daily dose was 1.8-2.0 Gy and total radiation dose was ranged from 50.4 Gy to 72.0 Gy with median dose 59.4 Gy. Thirty four patients was treated with combined therapy with neoadjuvant or concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and most of them were administered with the multi-drug combined chemotherapy including etoposide and cisplatin. The survival rate was calculated with the Kaplan-Meier methods. Results : The overall 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year survival rates were 63$\%$, 29$\%$, and 26$\%$, respectively. The median survival time of all patients was 17 months. The disease-free survival rate for 1-year and 2-year were 23$\%$ and 16$\%$, respectively. The overall 1-year survival rates according to the stage was 100$\%$ for stage I, 80$\%$ for stage II, 61$\%$ for stage III, and 50$\%$ for stage IV. The overall 1-year 2-year, and 3-year survival rates for stage III patients only were 61$\%$, 23$\%$, and 20$\%$, respectively. The median survival time of stage III patients only was 15 months. The complete response rates by radiation therapy was 10$\%$ and partial response rate was 50$\%$. Thirty patients (43$\%$) among 70 patients assessed local control at initial 3 months follow-up duration. Twenty four (80$\%$) of these 30 Patients was possible to evaluate the pattern of failure after achievement of local control. And then, treatment failure occured in 14 patients (58$\%$): local relapse in 6 patients (43$\%$), distant metastasis in 6 patients (43$\%$) and local relapse with distant metastasis in 2 patients (14$\%$). Therefore, 10 patients (23$\%$) were controlled of disease of primary site with or without distant metastases. Twenty three patients (46$\%$) among 50 patients who were possible to follow-up had distant metastasis. The overall 1-year survival rate according to the treatment modalities was 59$\%$ in radiotherapy alone and 66$\%$ in chemoirradiation group. The overall 1-year survival rates for stage III patients only was 51$\%$ in radiotherapy alone and 68$\%$ in chemoirradiation group which was significant different. The significant prognostic factors affecting survival rate were the stage and the achievement of local control for all patients at univariate- analysis. Use of neoadjuvant or concurrent chemotherapy, use of chemotherapy and the achievement of local control for stage III patients only were also prognostic factors. The stage, pretreatment performance status, use of neoadjuvant or concurrent chemotherapy, total radiation dose and the achievement of local control were significant at multivariate analysis. The treatment-related toxicities were esophagitis, radiation pneunonitis, hematologic toxicity and dermatitis, which were spontaneously improved, but 2 patients were died with radiation pneumonitis. Conclusion : The conventional radiation therapy was not sufficient therapy for achievement of long-term survival in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Therefore, aggressive treatment including the addition of appropriate chemotherapeutic drug to decrease distant metastasis and preoperative radiotherapy combined with surgery, hyperfractionation radiotherapy or 3-D conformal radiation therapy for increase local control are needed.